> the weekly meetings often featured "search quality" measurements that were rigorous in their objectivity (I thought). I wish this part got discussed, but eve

> the weekly meetings often featured "search quality" measurements that were rigorous in their objectivity (I thought). I wish this part got discussed, but every time I've attempted it, the discussion has been shut down by "lol they're experts at search and you're not and you don't know what they know." I wouldn't put it past Google to be blindsided thinking their own metrics are objective (perhaps they are objective measurements of something but not of what they actually want to measure). If anything, the battle with SEO just shows how hard it is to do something right and avoid getting gamed. If they can't rank SEO spam off the front page, why would I believe their measurements are any better than the rankings? There's also always a small possibility that metrics are worse than wrong; they could actually say everything is fine, keep serving these long form SEO spam articles that people click and read for far too long before realizing it doesn't have have the answers they seek.